Search

Background: Conversion of sputum culture from positive to negative for M. tuberculosis is a key indicator of treatment response. An initial positive culture is a pre-requisite to observe conversion. Consequently, patients with a missing or negative initial culture are excluded from analyses of conversion outcomes. To identify the initial, or "baseline" culture, researchers must define a sample collection interval. An interval extending past treatment initiation can increase sample size but may introduce selection bias because patients without a positive pre-treatment culture must survive and remain in care to have a culture in the post-treatment interval., Methods: We used simulated data and data from the endTB observational cohort to investigate the potential for bias when extending baseline culture intervals past treatment initiation. We evaluated bias in the proportion with six-month conversion., Results: In simulation studies, the potential for bias depended on the proportion of patients missing a pre-treatment culture, proportion with conversion, proportion culture positive at treatment initiation, and proportion of patients missing a pre-treatment culture who would have been observed to be culture positive, had they had a culture. In observational data, the maximum potential for bias when reporting the proportion with conversion reached five percentage points in some sites., Conclusion: Extending the allowable baseline interval past treatment initiation may introduce selection bias. If investigators choose to extend the baseline collection interval past treatment initiation, the proportion missing a pre-treatment culture and the number of deaths and losses to follow up during the post-treatment allowable interval should be clearly enumerated., Competing Interests: The endTB Consortium coordinated donations of delamanid (Otsuka Pharmaceutical) and bedaquiline (Janssen) to be used for treatment by some of the patients included in the endTB Observational Study. All authors report no additional potential conflicts of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2022 Rodriguez et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Few studies have evaluated the association between preexisting vitamin D deficiency and incident tuberculosis (TB). We assessed the impact of baseline vitamins D levels on TB disease risk.Methods and Findings: We assessed the association between baseline vitamin D and incident TB in a prospective cohort of 6,751 HIV-negative household contacts of TB patients enrolled between September 1, 2009, and August 29, 2012, in Lima, Peru. We screened for TB disease at 2, 6, and 12 months after enrollment. We defined cases as household contacts who developed TB disease at least 15 days after enrollment of the index patient. For each case, we randomly selected four controls from among contacts who did not develop TB disease, matching on gender and year of age. We also conducted a one-stage individual-participant data (IPD) meta-analysis searching PubMed and Embase to identify prospective studies of vitamin D and TB disease until June 8, 2019. We included studies that assessed vitamin D before TB diagnosis. In the primary analysis, we defined vitamin D deficiency as 25-(OH)D < 50 nmol/L, insufficiency as 50-75 nmol/L, and sufficiency as >75nmol/L. We estimated the association between baseline vitamin D status and incident TB using conditional logistic regression in the Lima cohort and generalized linear mixed models in the meta-analysis. We further defined severe vitamin D deficiency as 25-(OH)D < 25 nmol/L and performed stratified analyses by HIV status in the IPD meta-analysis. In the Lima cohort, we analyzed 180 cases and 709 matched controls. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for TB risk among participants with baseline vitamin D deficiency compared to sufficient vitamin D was 1.63 (95% CI 0.75-3.52; p = 0.22). We included seven published studies in the meta-analysis and analyzed 3,544 participants. In the pooled analysis, the aOR was 1.48 (95% CI 1.04-2.10; p = 0.03). The aOR for severe vitamin D deficiency was 2.05 (95% CI 0.87-4.87; p trend for decreasing 25-(OH)D levels from sufficient vitamin D to severe deficiency = 0.02). Among 1,576 HIV-positive patients, vitamin D deficiency conferred a 2-fold (aOR 2.18, 95% CI 1.22-3.90; p = 0.01) increased risk of TB, and the aOR for severe vitamin D deficiency compared to sufficient vitamin D was 4.28 (95% CI 0.85-21.45; p = 0.08). Our Lima cohort study is limited by the short duration of follow-up, and the IPD meta-analysis is limited by the number of possible confounding covariates available across all studies.Conclusion: Our findings suggest vitamin D predicts TB disease risk in a dose-dependent manner and that the risk of TB disease is highest among HIV-positive individuals with severe vitamin D deficiency. Randomized control trials are needed to evaluate the possible role of vitamin D supplementation on reducing TB disease risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]